You would think that companies would not put in language that is unenforceable
You mean like the standard corporate email signature? The one that says that if you receive this in error, you are required to destroy it, destroy all copies of it and notify the sender of their error? I mean THAT is enforceable right? Even if I have a corporate policy of retaining all emails sent and received.
obviously just a chess player (considerably less complex than go, BTW, hence computers beat chess players years ago
Depends on how you look at it. Chess is far more complex in terms of rules, but you can learn Go in a matter of minutes.
Go admittedly has many more possible games. But what is amazing is the level of complexity from such a simple rule system. I have played maybe a dozen games, so am not an expert by any stretch. But the game has a level of beauty to it that chess does not.
Oh, that's easy. You see, we tape the passwords to the bottom of the PC. Those of us who work there know this, but no outside hacker would ever think to look there.
Plus the first password is 12345 and the second is ABCDEFG. Half the time, I don't even have to look at the sticky note.
And how does this relate to the conversation in question? We are talking about whether it is more efficient to use a probe to "gravitationally tug" at another object in space versus slamming into it versus landing and pushing. Within the context of these three options, I doubt either of them are going to redirect the asteroid to Venus for the slingshot effect. And if you are, then ANY of these three methods could do so.
The simulation shows that, given enough time, the cumulative effect of the gravitational tug can exceed that of expending all of the energy carried by the probe,
So, basically, you are somehow getting more energy out of the system than you put in. This is basically the definition of a perpetual motion machine.
Ion engines give better long-term acceleration than chemical engines because they can spit the exhaust out faster, not because there is some magical reason that slow acceleration is more efficient than fast acceleration.
Ramming the ship into the asteroid is more efficient, but has the problem of potentially busting up chunks of the asteroid, imprecise measurements, and the inability to monitor and make adjustments as the asteroid is moved.
You have to obey the laws of physics. There is no way you will expend less energy holding your position than using all of your fuel to build up speed and crash into the sucker.
In fact, if there is any elasticity in the collision, it it far more efficient to crash. And this does not take into account the fuel you will waste simply by having to angle your exhaust to not hit the asteroid.
Now, the down sides to crashing are that you cannot accurately know just how much you will move the meteorite. You cannot make midcourse adjustments as you learn more about its trajectory, and as you mention, not all asteroids will be landable. Soft surface or rocky surace, and you will have wasted the lander.
Slashdot Mirror
Thank God it wasn't a Rick Roll.
You would think that companies would not put in language that is unenforceable
You mean like the standard corporate email signature? The one that says that if you receive this in error, you are required to destroy it, destroy all copies of it and notify the sender of their error? I mean THAT is enforceable right? Even if I have a corporate policy of retaining all emails sent and received.
obviously just a chess player (considerably less complex than go, BTW, hence computers beat chess players years ago
Depends on how you look at it. Chess is far more complex in terms of rules, but you can learn Go in a matter of minutes.
Go admittedly has many more possible games. But what is amazing is the level of complexity from such a simple rule system. I have played maybe a dozen games, so am not an expert by any stretch. But the game has a level of beauty to it that chess does not.
But it doesn't make for a witty comeback...
Wow. I read the article and still had time for first post. If this were Saturday, I would think everyone else was getting ready for a hot date.
After reading the article, I come to the conclusion that this would be perfect for edible underwear.
Research team -- look into this.
For frame of reference you have about 7,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 atoms in your body.
If I am mostly carbon, that'd make me around 300lbs. Are you assuming I am American?
Okay.... prove that I have the right to bear arms.
Do CowboyNeal's count?
(runs off to pour bleach in eyes)
I need to see a naked girl to shit in a cup/i>
You can't shit in a cup without seeing a naked girl? Not to mention the other two items.
You have issues.
Not that I would watch it, of course.
Thanks for being the first person to notice this and post about it.
It is called the status bar. It shows you what a link is pointing to.
Yes! Got down modded for flaming myself ;)
Oh, that's easy. You see, we tape the passwords to the bottom of the PC. Those of us who work there know this, but no outside hacker would ever think to look there.
Plus the first password is 12345 and the second is ABCDEFG. Half the time, I don't even have to look at the sticky note.
Next time yell "Fr!st Post".
damn n00bs.
... I borrowed it for the weekend to play WoW.
Yes. Leviticus.
And how does this relate to the conversation in question? We are talking about whether it is more efficient to use a probe to "gravitationally tug" at another object in space versus slamming into it versus landing and pushing. Within the context of these three options, I doubt either of them are going to redirect the asteroid to Venus for the slingshot effect. And if you are, then ANY of these three methods could do so.
The simulation shows that, given enough time, the cumulative effect of the gravitational tug can exceed that of expending all of the energy carried by the probe,
So, basically, you are somehow getting more energy out of the system than you put in. This is basically the definition of a perpetual motion machine.
Ion engines give better long-term acceleration than chemical engines because they can spit the exhaust out faster, not because there is some magical reason that slow acceleration is more efficient than fast acceleration.
Ramming the ship into the asteroid is more efficient, but has the problem of potentially busting up chunks of the asteroid, imprecise measurements, and the inability to monitor and make adjustments as the asteroid is moved.
expending all of the energy carried by the probe
You have to obey the laws of physics. There is no way you will expend less energy holding your position than using all of your fuel to build up speed and crash into the sucker.
In fact, if there is any elasticity in the collision, it it far more efficient to crash. And this does not take into account the fuel you will waste simply by having to angle your exhaust to not hit the asteroid.
Now, the down sides to crashing are that you cannot accurately know just how much you will move the meteorite. You cannot make midcourse adjustments as you learn more about its trajectory, and as you mention, not all asteroids will be landable. Soft surface or rocky surace, and you will have wasted the lander.
I believe your last two citations are incorrect. The last should be 1 John, and was not uttered by Jesus. The middle one is Luke 12:33.
preferred method should be beating to death by a stick.
My guess is you lack the upper body strength to pick up a stick.
You have a typo on line 132.
You forget about wrist action.